MDAPlatform: A Component-based Platform for Constructing and Assessing miRNA-disease Association Prediction Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Increasing evidence has indicated that miRNA-disease association prediction plays a critical role in the study of clinical drugs. Researchers have proposed many computational models for miRNA-disease prediction. However, there is no unified platform to compare and analyze the pros and cons or share the code and data of these models. Objective: In this study, we develop an easy-to-use platform (MDAPlatform) to construct and assess miRNA-disease association prediction method. Methods: MDAPlatform integrates the relevant data of miRNA, disease and miRNA-disease associations that are used in previous miRNA-disease association prediction studies. Based on the componentized model, it develops different components of previous computational methods. Results: Users can conduct cross validation experiments and compare their methods with other methods, and the visualized comparison results are also provided. Conclusion: Based on the componentized model, MDAPlatform provides easy-to-operate interfaces to construct the miRNA-disease association method, which is beneficial to develop new miRNA-disease association prediction methods in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".